Frank Mir on Self Defense

Training
81

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Good points Irish and Big Boss.

A small european country such as Austria cannot be justified in a macro policy decision in comparison to America. Thats like me saying “theres no crime in pittsburgh that banned guns…it will work for the other hundreds of millions of people in this country too!” You are much easier to micro manage. Like you said FW, your nation is one that is not even the size of an American city. This is especially true when it comes to diversity and racial tensions. Much of the gang warfare is blacks and lationos killing each other for power that is racially and financially motivated. See my next few paragraphs. Regardless what you say, you dont have the same racial problems that a few turks pose. Ive lived in Europe, yours is minor and transient.

Case in point. Washington DC. One of the biggest crime cities in the nation, greatly increased murders when a handgun ban was put into place. Furethermore, while living in London, youth gang violence was at an all time high and there was a huge knife problem. 16 people were killed in 2 months. Youth violence was on the rise, guns had nothing to do with this. I feel safer in drug riddled AMERICAN cities than I did there. Why? Because I can be armed. More so though, the nature of the crime, here it is usually criminals killing criminals, bystanders get killed by strays occasionally. There, robberies resulting in death are more common because the crime is lower stakes. If that makes sense. People attempted to rob me twice and tried to mug me once in Europe. Never happened living in the city of Pittsburgh for 5 years. The muggers also tried to kill me with a rock. Thankfully I got lucky and had training. Go on youtube, Uriah Faber was attacked in Bali indonesia by 12-16 thugs that didnt have guns who tried to kill him. Its a great story…

Guns are not a cause, they are a byproduct of a stupid ill thought drug war. We have a burgeoning economy that creates a false demand for illicit drugs due to constricted supply. This increases the profit motive and being that it is illicit, creates violence. Most of the deaths you will find are drug related. The guns are not the problem. Most of the guns used are illicitly obtained as well. The argument here is over LEGEALLY owned firearms. The real solution is fixing the stupid laws we have about the “drug war”. Not that this thread is designed to argue the merits or demerits of such law. Case in point the rise of gangs such as Al Capones using gun violence during the prohibition of alcohol.

I do think some of Mir’s points were a little far fetched, ie gun toting teachers and housewives, I do think peppers spray and tasers are much more viable alternatives for someone that does not have the time nor care to learn how to use a tool (gun) successfully. I wouldnt have a 5 year old using a circular saw on my house.

[/quote]
Get your shit straight, gun deaths are largely males that are black, latinos on average die of firearms less than whites. Please espand on the stupid laws. Do you want to support drug related gangs? If you are saying mild drugs should be legalized I agree, but they should be regulated.

82

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I am not one of those people that thinks that Violence never solves anything- it sure does. And honestly, just knowing that the citizens have as many guns as the government does should ensure that the government must be very, very careful in regards to what they do and how they do it… which is how it should be, because the power is SUPPOSED to lie with the people, not with the great mass behind the curtain that functions as the “The Government.”

You talked about the sophistacated system of checks and balances… well, a rifle is the ultimate check and balance against an overabusive government. That’s why I demand to keep them.[/quote]

Ain’t that way, Irish, you know that.

First off, (even in the US) you’re not allowed to own just any weapon. Think tanks, cruise missiles, biological weapons, … All stuff you can’t stop with a handgun. Also, most people (apart from those that served) simply don’t have the training to compete with trained soldiers.Lastly, there’s always the question of organisation and command chains.

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers) but then there’s always an immanent political instability in those countries. Or, the army just isn’t all that professional. In the US, you’ve got one of the strongest armies in the world. Really think your .45 would stop a government from abusing it’s position?

83

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
As for Switzerland statistically… Last time I checked, they had some of the lowest crime and gun crimes rates in the world.
[/quote]

Right. Read again. I said gun incident. It’s usually some kid playing around with his fathers gun, someone mishandling it, … That’s not down to bad training, those guys are obligated to train. It’s in their law.

[quote]
The problem isn’t firearms, the problem with banning legal firearms however is it only does just that: remove legally owned, registered firearms. The ban does nada to stop criminals getting their hands on a illegal firearm, as they would’ve done the exact same thing before the ban.[/quote]

Not arguing that. Anyhow, this point has been brought up already a couple of times. In Austria (also in Germany), most gun related crimes are carried out with legally registered guns. So it’s a first step.

[quote]
But also, our self defence laws here are shithouse. We have a “equal force” ruling. I.E if someguy tries to jump you, you can only use defend yourself in hand to hand. If he pulls a knife out, only then can you grab a rock to defend yourself. It’s ridiculous, it legally puts you on the reactive and waiting for your assailant to escalate the level of violence, which is how people get killed.[/quote]

We have that ruling, too. Anyhow, you have to be real about that one.
When I teach self defense, we don’t do small joint manipulations or “law-abiding” stuff like that. We go for the eyes, the throat, the knees,… you get the point. Why? Simple. After a street fight, I want my people to run like hell (preferably before, but let’s rule out that case for now) and leave the scene. We have a saying “If there’s no plaintiff, there won’t be a judge”. That basically means, in a streetfight, my live and that of my loved ones stands above anything else. Since I’m leaving the scene anyways, I don’t bother with the legal consequences.

84

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Good points Irish and Big Boss.

A small european country such as Austria cannot be justified in a macro policy decision in comparison to America. Thats like me saying “theres no crime in pittsburgh that banned guns…it will work for the other hundreds of millions of people in this country too!” You are much easier to micro manage. Like you said FW, your nation is one that is not even the size of an American city. This is especially true when it comes to diversity and racial tensions. Much of the gang warfare is blacks and lationos killing each other for power that is racially and financially motivated. See my next few paragraphs. Regardless what you say, you dont have the same racial problems that a few turks pose. Ive lived in Europe, yours is minor and transient.
[/quote]

Well, I bow to your experience, “having lived in europe and all”. Point is, I live here. I’ve been living here all my life. As have my buddies, part of my family, … You’re right, it doesn’t escalate in shootings here, but don’t forget only a couple of years ago, there were burning cars and revolts all over france.

Right. Guns have nothing to do with it. Still, there’s over 7.5 million people living in London. Now we had 16 people in 2 months over a short period. Just like above exaple (france), there’s times of increased crime. But now, first off, think about equally big american cities, I’m sure you’ll find cases where (gun related) mortality rate is higher than that. Also, think about what could have happened if those youths had guns (need not be their own, could belong to their parents, brothers, …)

Cool, John Wayne. Anyhow, I still doubt you could use that gun of yours in about 90% of all potential self defense situations. The other 10% is propably those where you wouldn’t need a gun.

[quote]
People attempted to rob me twice and tried to mug me once in Europe. Never happened living in the city of Pittsburgh for 5 years. The muggers also tried to kill me with a rock. Thankfully I got lucky and had training.[/quote]

Good. If he really came to point where he tried to acutally kill you, thank god the guy didn’t have a (legally registerd) gun. You’d propably be dead by now. Also, I’ve been mugged. But here, it tends to be a hand-to-hand situation, as you say, so training comes in handy. Most of the times, by the way, what keeps someone from running (thus gettin injured or killed) is false pride and the failure to just turn around and run.

85

[quote]Therizza wrote:
What would be alarming about this little tidbit? And why would it matter if I was serious or not?

Anyways, you’re from Austria, and so are Glocks. You see, I don’t really like Glocks. They are too light in my opinion, especially when firing anything above 9mm.

[/quote]

It’d be alarming because you’d be serving a certain stereotype that’s predominant in the world when it comes to the USA. So it’d matter if you were serious, because if you were, you’d be a racist and an idiot.

By the way, sorry for the Glocks, I didn’t construct them. Neither did I design the Steyr, before you ask. Not involved in the constructio of land mines, either. Yes, we do all that stuff. All world is using our guns. Still, we choose not to let just everyone own one right here in Austria.

86

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]Therizza wrote:
What would be alarming about this little tidbit? And why would it matter if I was serious or not?

Anyways, you’re from Austria, and so are Glocks. You see, I don’t really like Glocks. They are too light in my opinion, especially when firing anything above 9mm.

[/quote]

It’d be alarming because you’d be serving a certain stereotype that’s predominant in the world when it comes to the USA. So it’d matter if you were serious, because if you were, you’d be a racist and an idiot.

By the way, sorry for the Glocks, I didn’t construct them. Neither did I design the Steyr, before you ask. Not involved in the constructio of land mines, either. Yes, we do all that stuff. All world is using our guns. Still, we choose not to let just everyone own one right here in Austria.
[/quote]

Your opinion will count…will matter… when it is your sons and daughters spilling thier own blood in the name of freedom and peace. Your cute little nation has not even begun to pay the debt it owes the world for WWII. So, how about you just stfu and say thank you.

87

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Ain’t that way, Irish, you know that.

First off, (even in the US) you’re not allowed to own just any weapon. Think tanks, cruise missiles, biological weapons, … All stuff you can’t stop with a handgun. Also, most people (apart from those that served) simply don’t have the training to compete with trained soldiers.Lastly, there’s always the question of organisation and command chains.

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers) but then there’s always an immanent political instability in those countries. Or, the army just isn’t all that professional. In the US, you’ve got one of the strongest armies in the world. Really think your .45 would stop a government from abusing it’s position?[/quote]

First, I’m not against people owning assault weapons. There should be several hours mandatory training with them, but I still think they should be allowed to.

Secondly, there have been plenty of guerilla insurgencies that were fought with no more than rifles and time bombs- think the IRA against the British (who are pretty damn professional.) I could go on for a long time listing rebellions that weren’t supposed to work for the same reasons you listed, only to have the weaker side prevail. Our own Revolution is an example of this.

But you don’t even have the option if you don’t have the guns.

88

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Right. Guns have nothing to do with it. Still, there’s over 7.5 million people living in London. Now we had 16 people in 2 months over a short period. Just like above exaple (france), there’s times of increased crime. But now, first off, think about equally big american cities, I’m sure you’ll find cases where (gun related) mortality rate is higher than that. Also, think about what could have happened if those youths had guns (need not be their own, could belong to their parents, brothers, …)
[/quote]

Honestly, the limeys seem to have no qualms using knives to kill each other. I don’t know how much of a difference a gun would make at that point.

This is just foolish.

In a home invasion scenario, I would take a shotgun in a second over anything.

In the street, a handgun will vastly change the odds- if someone even goes after you. Why do you think you don’t hear about shootings “in self defense” all the time? Because the guys who are allowed to carry do so openly.

So if you’re a criminal, who exactly are you going to attack? A 35-year old able-bodied male with a revolver on his hip? Or do you think you would wait for maybe, say, an EASIER target?

There’s no way to count how many crimes open carrying deters.

This is a red herring. The point isn’t whether it’s registered or not.

[quote]
Also, I’ve been mugged. But here, it tends to be a hand-to-hand situation, as you say, so training comes in handy. Most of the times, by the way, what keeps someone from running (thus gettin injured or killed) is false pride and the failure to just turn around and run.[/quote]

If you engage in hand to hand with a criminal, you’d better have a damn good reason. So this I agree with.

89

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]Therizza wrote:
What would be alarming about this little tidbit? And why would it matter if I was serious or not?

Anyways, you’re from Austria, and so are Glocks. You see, I don’t really like Glocks. They are too light in my opinion, especially when firing anything above 9mm.

[/quote]

It’d be alarming because you’d be serving a certain stereotype that’s predominant in the world when it comes to the USA. So it’d matter if you were serious, because if you were, you’d be a racist and an idiot.

By the way, sorry for the Glocks, I didn’t construct them. Neither did I design the Steyr, before you ask. Not involved in the constructio of land mines, either. Yes, we do all that stuff. All world is using our guns. Still, we choose not to let just everyone own one right here in Austria.
[/quote]

Your opinion will count…will matter… when it is your sons and daughters spilling thier own blood in the name of freedom and peace. Your cute little nation has not even begun to pay the debt it owes the world for WWII. So, how about you just stfu and say thank you.[/quote]

How about thinking before talking? Since you yankees can’t handle the wars you started, German, Polish and yes, Austrian troops are doing “police duty” (which unfortunately means bombing down a lot of people, as the Germans have shown recently). Also, you don’t know what you’re talking about if you think we wouldn’t do our best to repay the victims of WWII. My family, by the way, has fought against the nazis. Half of it died in that war or the years after. They were tortured, shot down and imprisoned in concentration camps first and some siberian gulags later when the Russians put the commies in charge in Poland. That’s the world I grew up in. How about you? How many family members have you lost? How many of them have fought in that war? I don’t care about some Afghanistan (although I recognize the Taliban needed a bashing. But then, Bin Laden was trained and sponsored by the US, after all) or Irak (again, Saddam was your “good friend” more than once). Those were skirmishes compared to WWII. To think you call them “the fight for freedom” is ridiculous, really.

You know what, shut the fuck up.

By the way, say thank you for what? To whom? You? Certainly not, dumbass.

90

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Secondly, there have been plenty of guerilla insurgencies that were fought with no more than rifles and time bombs- think the IRA against the British (who are pretty damn professional.)
[/quote]

Ok, you’re Irish, obviously, so this is going to piss you off, but… the IRA hasn’t been quite that successfull now, are they?

[quote]
I could go on for a long time listing rebellions that weren’t supposed to work for the same reasons you listed, only to have the weaker side prevail. Our own Revolution is an example of this.[/quote]

Not quite - your own revolution was a war of equal arms. You had muskets and cannons just as the brits. Also, some of those cute little european countries you all despise so much helped you out.

91

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Honestly, the limeys seem to have no qualms using knives to kill each other. I don’t know how much of a difference a gun would make at that point. [/quote]

Big difference, I think.

What you’re referring to follows the same concept the US and the USSR were following in their nuclear arms programs. Now, thankfully, there was no nuclear war, anyhow, that’s mainly due to the fact that those decisions aren’t made by (propably drugged, over-emotional) individuals.

No, you’re right, it’s not, that’s why I put it into brackets. Still, a gun would have changed the situation.

92

[quote]
Your opinion will count…will matter… when it is your sons and daughters spilling thier own blood in the name of freedom and peace. Your cute little nation has not even begun to pay the debt it owes the world for WWII. So, how about you just stfu and say thank you.[/quote]

Just to make that point again: fuck you.

93

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers)[/quote]

What? I’d like to see a source for that. As far as I know Che was never involved in a force on force fight with US forces. He was however KILLED by Militia who were trained by US Green Berets.

94

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers)[/quote]

What? I’d like to see a source for that. As far as I know Che was never involved in a force on force fight with US forces. He was however KILLED by Militia who were trained by US Green Berets.[/quote]

You’re right, I stand corrected.

95

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers)[/quote]

What? I’d like to see a source for that. As far as I know Che was never involved in a force on force fight with US forces. He was however KILLED by Militia who were trained by US Green Berets.[/quote]

You’re right, I stand corrected.[/quote]

you need to chill out man. didn’t you know you’d get some shit thrown at you for mentioning “gun control” here?

96

USA USA USA

97

[quote]Therizza wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

I know that there’s been a lot of successfull revolts (think Cuba, where Che even defeated your US rangers)[/quote]

What? I’d like to see a source for that. As far as I know Che was never involved in a force on force fight with US forces. He was however KILLED by Militia who were trained by US Green Berets.[/quote]

You’re right, I stand corrected.[/quote]

you need to chill out man. didn’t you know you’d get some shit thrown at you for mentioning “gun control” here? [/quote]

No, that’s ok. Somebody’s throwing shit at me, I say “fuck you” and for me, it’s done.
As for a good discussion, I like that. That’s what discussion boards are there for, right?

Also, in the above point, Davo was just right. I got that wrong. It was a ranger regiment trained by US troops that Che fought against, and who eventually had him shot in that school in Bolivia.

98

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Secondly, there have been plenty of guerilla insurgencies that were fought with no more than rifles and time bombs- think the IRA against the British (who are pretty damn professional.)
[/quote]

Ok, you’re Irish, obviously, so this is going to piss you off, but… the IRA hasn’t been quite that successfull now, are they?
[/quote]

Depends on your definition of success. There is a joint government there that everyone seems to be living with- and the not the anti-catholic majority rule that was once there.

Did they kill every British soldier? No. Did they achieve a political end? Yes.

[quote]
I could go on for a long time listing rebellions that weren’t supposed to work for the same reasons you listed, only to have the weaker side prevail. Our own Revolution is an example of this.

Not quite - your own revolution was a war of equal arms. You had muskets and cannons just as the brits. Also, some of those cute little european countries you all despise so much helped you out.[/quote]

Yes, but there was no training, few muskets, less powder, and no cannons until we captured them. So it wasn’t equal arms, not by a longshot.

We also had no warships, no transports, and no experience… but we pulled it off.

The same could be said about the Aghanis vs. the Soviets or the Americans, the Southern guerillas against the Union armies, and the Viet Cong against the Americans. These were FAR from wars of equal arms.

Do I really need to list out the guerilla wars that have succeeded in the past 50 years? There are many.

99

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

What you’re referring to follows the same concept the US and the USSR were following in their nuclear arms programs. Now, thankfully, there was no nuclear war, anyhow, that’s mainly due to the fact that those decisions aren’t made by (propably drugged, over-emotional) individuals.
[/quote]

Ahh, yea. And it worked. Way better than the USSR having the weapons and us not would have.

And why would you think that those in government are any different than the people on the street? That is a massive amount of elitism you are showing- giving lying, thieving, drunk, scheming politicans control over the fate of the world, but not letting one person control their own fate if a conflict arises by carrying a gun?

Were we born into these castes? Or did you just make them up?

100

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

What you’re referring to follows the same concept the US and the USSR were following in their nuclear arms programs. Now, thankfully, there was no nuclear war, anyhow, that’s mainly due to the fact that those decisions aren’t made by (propably drugged, over-emotional) individuals.
[/quote]

Ahh, yea. And it worked. Way better than the USSR having the weapons and us not would have.

And why would you think that those in government are any different than the people on the street? That is a massive amount of elitism you are showing- giving lying, thieving, drunk, scheming politicans control over the fate of the world, but not letting one person control their own fate if a conflict arises by carrying a gun?

Were we born into these castes? Or did you just make them up?[/quote]

Come on, there’s no castes in what I said. There’s just so many more people involved in such an important decision (like starting a nuclear war and stuff), so there’s not one emotional guy but a bunch of discussing people. After all, that’s what made democracy the superior (?) form of government, right? Communication, discussion and a common consensus to actions. That’s what makes democracy so different from, say, a dictatorship. One person alone doesn’t wield that much power in a democracy. Even if (in some cases such as the US) the president has very much power (the concept of a president is somewhat different here), there’s more factors for him to consider and more people he needs to rely on.

Completely different with individuals. The example that was brought up with the husband coming home and catching his wife in bed was a good one, IMHO. Here, emotions, coupled with a gun, could lead to tragedy.

Now I’m a huge fan of taking your own fate into your own hands, but letting everyone have a gun is doing the opposite, in my book. In a hand-to-hand situation or even with a bottle or knive involved, I can run (propably faster than the other guy) or if I have to, I can rely on my training and brawl it out. Both is impossible if the other guy is carrying a weapon.

It’s not likely to become a holywood-style firefight either, at least not if he already has his gun out and I don’t.

As for the house invasions… doesn’t happen here, really. Anyhow, even in Austria you can buy a shotgun without any problem. Legally, that is. You can also buy hunting rifles and the like. All of which is sufficient to defend your home, if that’s necessary (as I said, it isn’t. Not here.). If you have kids, you’ll think twice about bunkering guns in your home, though.

What we don’t allow (and I don’t approve of) is handguns and everything you can carry with you. That’s where trouble starts, bigtime.